Letters to the Editor Sunday

A dead coyote sits atop a dune at the 18th Street crossover Tuesday morning. Photo special to the Savannah Morning News

When I learned about the Tybee coyote being shot, I felt so sad.

The disrespect for this living creature, a creature that has an important place in the balance of nature and Mother Earth, sickened me.

As we humans continue our wanton disrespect for nature, we feed the imbalance that we are now experiencing. Extreme weather events, unbalanced seasons and glaciers melting are all indications of the disregard we have for the natural order in the universe.

Tybee City Council put all the pieces in place to ensure a solution to the coyote “problem” that allowed us to respect all of the people and animals involved.

This shooting is not a feather in this killer’s cap or it wouldn’t have happened in the dark, without witness, and be a secret.

I pray to the Creator that one day, people will see the balance that is supposed to exist in ourselves and the world around us.

JAIME BERDACHE

Tybee Island

City Hall suffers from ‘good ol’ gal’ syndrome

Apparently, the Savannah city government is plagued with the “good ol’ boy” syndrome, but this time, it involves women.

I wish I could find a 28-year, on-the-job training program that pays $95,000 a year.

WILLIS MARTIN

Richmond Hill

Putting women in combat would be ‘tragic folly’

The decision to open the military combat arms to females will cause tragedy and mayhem, a tragic folly.

My perspective is that of a former infantry officer who served in Vietnam as an army aviator.

I have seen close-up what combat has to offer, and it ain’t pretty.

I can’t imagine any normal young woman with a desire to subject herself to the indescribable horrors of war as an infantryman.

Nor could a woman of average constitution be able to successfully complete the training regimen, unless the regimen is degraded to accommodate her.

Another aspect, which cannot be ignored is human nature. Young men are, by their very nature, hard-wired to be protective of the fairer sex.

In a combat situation, where the mission is paramount, young men must not be placed in a circumstance where regard for their female comrades would jeopardize the mission or their own lives.

Our current enemies regard women as property placed on earth for sexual purposes.

There should be no illusions over the fate of captive women soldiers.

How many of the people who are behind this measure have actually served in the military, much less combat?

EDWARD HOLMES, D.M.D.

Savannah

‘Assault weapons’ used in few murders

President Obama, Joe Biden, Dianne Feinstein and the rest of the “gun ban” crowd have made the “assault weapons” ban the centerpiece of their attack on the Second Amendment.

According to the FBI’s statistics from the latest year (2011), only 323 murders were committed with all rifles, including so-called “assault weapons.”

Basically, this means they are working to ban a product that is used far less in violent crime than baseball bats, knives, poison and arson.

What I find more disturbing is how the Sandy Hook shooting was manipulated to further this agenda. That raises at least a couple of questions.

First, the police reported until two days after the shooting that the “Bushmaster .223” was in the car, not at the scene. Then, by the third day, it became the murder weapon.

Does anybody believe police couldn’t tell what an AR-15 is?

While the .223 would have given the shooter an advantage, for example, if he decided to shoot it out with police, that was clearly not his intention.

He wanted to die at the scene.

The Obama administration saw an opportunity to further its agenda on semi-automatic bans.

Remember, these are the same folks who provided guns to Mexican drug dealers in the “Fast and Furious” operation that were used to kill an American border officer.

DAVID SIKORSKY

Savannah

Savannah should revive Citizens Crime Commission

Regarding the plea from the mayor for citizens’ assistance, I phoned her office three times Thursday to suggest a Citizens Crime Commission, such as we had when I was working with Susan Weiner’s mayoral campaign.

At that time, the Ricky Jivens gang had taken safety off the streets by requiring possible new members to commit a random murder, and this hard-working CCC organization helped in many ways, especially in educating the public and encouraging so many people to join in the vigil.

Mayor Edna Jackson has yet to call me back, even though I told her office my call concerned a possible revival of a CCC.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

"The disrespect for this living creature, a creature that has an important place in the balance of nature and Mother Earth, sickened me." (Jaime Berdache).

What you obviously don't know is that the coyote is not native to this area and their presence actually upsets the balance of nature here.

Among other things, the federally funded Wildlife Restoration Program, "Assess the impacts of coyote predation on
fawn recruitment; Population size, survival
and reproductive ecology of the central
Georgia black bear population; and many
other important wildlife conservation projects."

Suffer your sadness. There is nothing wrong with that. But let's try to approach this with reason and rational thought rather than emotion and uninformed rhetoric. Trapping and relocating the coyote population may solve Tybee's problem, but unless you intend to return it to it's natural habitat of open grassland, you create a problem for someone else.

Since he was introduced to the area by man, he has gone a long way toward reducing the non-native populations of kitty cats and puppy dogs. That's a fair trade off. In addition, when he grows old and weak, he will become an important food source for the non-native population of constrictors, the Boa and Python which are migrating north from the Everglades, where non-native yankees have released them into the wild.

As for the coyote's untimely death..I think he was randomly struck by a bullet fired into the air at Forsyth Park by someone celebrating something.

I don't believe I wrote that hunting within city limits was legal, did I? I was responding to the statement, "This shooting is not a feather in this killer’s cap or it wouldn’t have happened in the dark, without witness, and be a secret." Also, I have yet to read of any evidence showing where the coyote was actually shot.

I was also responding to the coyote's position in the "balance of nature." We as humans continue to disrupt the natural balance of every other species on the planet. Fortunately there are programs and people who are desperately trying to maintain that delicate, reasonable balance. The sad thing is that if we let wild animals, nuisance or otherwise, roam and breed unchecked, humans will be in danger. I doubt many Tybee residents would be willing to let alligators roam free in the streets, would they? Now I'm not condoning any illegal activity, but we humans have created many of these problems and have an obligation to manage them responsibly.

For the record, "The sad thing is that if we let wild animals, nuisance or otherwise, roam and breed unchecked, humans will be in danger. I doubt many Tybee residents would be willing to let alligators roam free in the streets, would they?" is the full statement.

Clearly my "soft spot" doesn't extend to those who would misquote me or twist my words.

. . is merely part of the larger issue of equality. The military doesn't treat men and women equally in other areas (physical fitness and uniform standards for example), but there is no push to eliminate discrimination in these regulations (laws). If we want total equality, then let's start with other non life threatening issues, like Selective Service. I wonder how the general population would feel if women were subjected to the same requirements and punishments spelled out in the Selective Service Act. That might be the best place to start implementing true equality. Either you support equality, or you don't.

The Constitution says all men are created equal. Women state they are equal to any man in career moves and are qualified to receive the same pay. We have seen women for many years want the same rights as men. The Armed Services should not be prejudice, as they now accept anyone who passes their qualifications regardless of race or creed and now gender. We require 18 year old men to sign up, we need to enforce women, too. Why should we ship off males against their will and not touch females? The females fought for equality and we have reciprocated. BTW, I have no sons and I have two daughters.

Me standing up for women's rights should make the world a much rosier place, right Susan Catron ?

that I feel the Media is a HUGE part of this problem. Weather it is violent TV shows, Video games or the " if it Bleeds it Leads" on the 6 O'clock news it is all "numbing" us to the reality in which we live. I don't have the answers but I don't hear any one asking the RIGHT questions to the correct people. The media has gotten more money ( in advertising ) while going on and on about Sandy hook to the point its SICKENING. These people went on and on for hours talking about stuff they had no idea about. OBVIOUSLY not 1 of those reporters were Ever in the Military or OWNED a gun. Yes it was a terrible act but nothing expressed by the government and media would have stopped it. PERIOD. Kinda reminded me about the local reporter making up reasons why the fire department needed tarps to EXTINGUISH the fire ( hint : they don't put out fire,... they minimize the damage from the water )

And the SMN is not with out fault either. Why does the SMN feel the need to provide links to " follow the Givens gang" OVER TEN YEARS LATER ?

We must all do our part in keeping the world a safe place. In this country we have decreed that we are equals, be it male or female. We have been taught that it is morally wrong to put one sex over another. The same goes for torture, we must not feel one is acceptable while one is not. They should be regarded as equal, though we may not like it, it will continue, and torture happens depending on sex. Yes, even males are subjected to it. This is the 21st century and we should not show any inequality should we want to become a warm and fuzzy world. Even Susan should agree.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Martin Dempsey, in his press conference on Thursday hinted that he just might consider lowering the standards to let women in the jobs which might take them into combat, according to the Washington Times;

then they are all going to be more at risk of being killed or captured. It is not about discriminating against women. There are certain jobs that men do better than women just as there are jobs that women do better than men. That is the way God made us. What happens when they are in the middle of battle and the woman is on her monthly cycle. Does she bring sanitary napkins on the battle field with her. Where and how is she going to take care of personal hygiene. Whoever made this decision should have studied all the possible scenarios that could happen. It's silly to say that men want to keep women barefoot and pregnant. But they have to be realistic.

Southern Belle wondered about the 'female monthlies'. My friends who have served report that most women who are of childbearing age take an injection (which lasts several months) when they are deployed in order to stop the usual cyclic inconvenience/risk of pregnancy.

There have been accommodations for Women in the field since most nurses became females who served with the military. Before Florence's time most Military nurses were Male due to sexual mores and taboos.

There have been Female Warriors throughout history in other cultures. The U.S. has been influenced by medieval and Victorian cultural expectations for women until the past few decades. Since the 1960's we have seen women enter increasingly more 'traditional male' roles such as airline pilots, astronauts, fishing boat skippers, etc.

Women who live in combat areas are affected by war every bit as much as men. The Resistance in Europe during WWII was very strong with women-including Audrey Hepburn. There were female operatives in the Pacific theater as well who were invaluable to the Allied Effort.

The one prominent Western nation today which requires ALL of its able-bodied citizens to serve in the military when they reach adulthood is Israel. Whether one agrees with their policies or not it must be noted that they refuse to be exterminated and strike back without asking for anyone's Permission when attacked.

Here in America we have not had to deal with being invaded by a foreign military since the War of 1812. Should that happen I don't imagine that any of the women I know would hesitate to take up arms and fight for their homes and families.

And I don't much imagine anyone would have a problem with them doing so.

political correctness, gender bias or any other concept. Anything that makes our military stronger is good and anything that makes it weaker is bad. The military is not a social experiment and exists or should exist only to protect our country. I'm not from Missouri but I don't see how moving women from support roles to combat is going to improve our capability.

My daughter is a graduate of The United States Naval Academy. She earned 2 letters in varsity sports. before declaring Navy or Marines she spent the summer between her junior and senior years at Quantico, VA "Bulldog" training. This is required for those in Platoon Leaders
Class training to be Marine officers. In a company of over 180, 30 of which were female, she finished 4th overall. And she was graded by seasoned Marine officers and non-coms. She eventually chose the Navy because the career opportunities were greater since in 1989 women weren't allowed in any combat situation. As far as physical capabilities go; in the last 10 years she's qualified for and competed in 5
Ironman Triathlon World Championships in Kona, HI.

That being said, she still is not forced to register with Selective Service, or subject to the punishment of 5 years in prison and $250,000 fine, or excluded from government programs such as student loans for not complying with the law. While I'm not familiar with Navy regulations, I do know the Army's regulations actually require double standards for men and women.

So we can discuss women in combat all day long, but equality in the military and civilian life is much larger than the handful of women who may be able to meet the same physical standards set for their male counterparts.

Tell me, how would you and your daughter feel if the military were gender neutral and she were forced to share quarters and bathroom facilities with complete strangers, who were men? Do you believe all men should be treated as sexual aggressors and your daughter deserves her privacy? How about a grandchild using the locker room at the base gym? Do men deserve the same consideration? How do you feel about gays in the military?

My point is this. In a military society, service members voluntarily give up some of the rights and choices they might otherwise have in civilian life. If allowing women in combat resulted in lifting ALL gender discrimination, how many women would leave the military before being forced to share a unisex locker room? Either you believe in equality, or you don't.

I have to believe that most people who believe women should serve in combat haven't thought this through. If our military and our society adopted true equality, privacy and protection from perceived "sexual aggressors" in public facilities would be a thing of the past. This may seem extreme, but the fact is, if we were to be truely honest, most of us would agree that some discrimination is acceptable, even necessary. So be careful what you wish for.

I don't think I've ever heard of men and women sharing the same facilities at the same time as one commenter made reference to. I have seen those facilities in war zones for men and women, never once showing any morals being broken. No one was ever required to be unclothed in front of the other sex, though I could be wrong. I am saying I've never seen it.

We have in the military female helicopter and airplane pilots, female S.E.A.L. applicants, women using artillery on carriers and destroyers. There are some sharpshooters and snipers that many men can't hold a candle to. I don't feel a woman should be turned down according to her sex if she so wants it. It's the same as sex, a woman can always say no. I have respected that decision 100% in my life.

It's also said that girls mature quicker than males. Is it right we register and send send off immature males in times of the draft and leave the more mature females at home, out of harms way? Do we register or lock up males and ignore the same that females do because they aren't required.

As I said before, this comes from a father with no sons. only two daughters. What is right is right. Any friends and family with sons will agree. It is not fair for males only. I wish to thank SMN and Susan for allowing my comments and making our lives so wonderful.

First of all, the Generals, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made the recommendation regarding lifting the ban on women in combat roles. I have no doubt that they have, first and foremost, the well-being of our military in their hearts and minds. These folks generally do not run for office, so political considerations do not trump the importance of the military's readiness with them. Secondly, what some of the comments seem not to appreciate is: While lifting the "ban" has been ordered, that is not the same as forcing the military to put women into heavy infantry roles that they do not have the physical ability to undertake.

While there are likely some women whose physical strength will approach that of a big male, it is rather apparent that most women do not have the same physical strength. However, from all the accounts I've seen and heard since the ban was lifted. it is apparent to me that service members of either sex that cannot do the things required of a front line infantryman simply will not be put in those roles. That is the way it is presently with men, and it appears that the standards will not be changed in order to simply get women into combat infantry positions. Furthermore, the services have been given a time period to inform DOD regarding positions in which they believe that women should not be put in at all. Thus the worry that they cannot do the job appears to be a red herring issue. They will not be slotted into positions that they cannot quailfy to do.

Women have been serving in combat support for over a decade in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are pilots and drivers of all sorts of transport. They are armed. I expect that, once again, they will be readily accepted by their fellow servicemen if placed in more front line roles if they have proven they can perform them, and that the doomsday prophecies will again be shown to be wrong. While adjustments always need to be made when changes are instituted, this is nothing that our military cannot handle.

Finally, perhaps the compromise that is necessary when lifting the ban on women in combat roles is to retain their exemption from selective service requirements. For one thing, there is no draft currently. Secondly, exemption will go a long way to assuring that women that cannot cope with combat positions will not be forced into them through a lowering of qualification standards. It would ensure that the women joining up will be assuming the risks and responsibilities of military service voluntarily and knowing that certain niceties of civilian life will not be available to them if deployed.

"I don't think I've ever heard of men and women sharing the same facilities at the same time as one commenter made reference to."

I haven't seen it either, but that wasn't my point. What I have experienced is a platoon of men waiting in the cold outside a 16-head field shower while 2 female soldiers took half an hour to get their daily showers. We also had to erect a second tent for the few women in the unit despite there being plenty of room for everyone in one tent.

My point is there is not equal treatment in the military in many areas, including combat roles. My example attempted to demonstrate that women want equality, sort of. They want to be treated the same as male service members, yet they still want their privacy protected from the "perceived" male sexual aggressor. Basically it is gender segregation; separate but equal.

This occurs both in civilian and military society and has more to do with sexuality than gender. Men have always been portrayed as the sexual aggressors so we segregate by gender to protect the privacy of women. Of course that doesn't help a straight woman who must now share quarters with a lesbian or the straight man and his gay roommate. Ironically, a straight couple cannot share quarters in the single soldier barracks because of cohabitation restrictions, but a gay couple can.

I'll say it again. Either you're for equality, or you're not. Picking and choosing what discrimination is acceptable, is still discrimination. Our culture will not accept a unisex society, but they have no problem forcing the equality issue on the military.

It appears that our Commander-in-Chief is going to do whatever he wants with the military whether it makes it stronger or weaker. There seems to be no real effort at this time to rein in the overflow of Executive Orders that have been flying from his desk.

The last time we had a President (Carter) who thought that we could LOVE the rest of the world into leaving us Alone wound up reinstating the Selective Service Act (which had actually expired in 1975) on July 2, 1980 after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.

President Reagan revoked it with Executive Order 12553 (signed on February 25, 1986) after rebuilding and upgrading our Military to the degree of Strength and Readiness that MUST be maintained in order to safeguard the Nation.

Under current law, all male U.S. citizens are required to register with Selective Service within 30 days of their 18th birthday. In addition, foreign males between the ages of 18 and 25 living in the United States must register. This includes permanent residents (holders of Green Cards), refugees, asylees, dual citizens, and illegal immigrants. Men who were born male but have since changed to females are currently exempt.

Whether FEMALES will eventually be required to also register remains to be seen depending upon which way the political wind happens to be blowing on any given day.

Is that the best you've got? Insults and personal attacks? If you have a problem with what I've written, why don't you explain yourself? I was just trying to point out how discriminatory the military is using personal experiences, current examples, and the possible implications of complete equality. I did not expressed my personal opinion regarding women in combat or gays in the military, despite what you may have inferred. I have served with women both in peacetime and in war, so I do feel I can speak to the topic with some intelligence. If I have expressed any opinion here, it is my disdain for the hypocrisy of those who claim they want equality in the military but accept discrimination when it suits them.

You've made 4 posts on this thread. All were personal attacks, and three of those were directed at me! We all know you've lost this battle, but I do want to thank you for proving a theory. You've been very entertaining.

If I should ever find myself in a gang fight-- whether it's in a back alley, in Baghdad or on Broughton Street-- I'd rather have a black girlfriend at my back than the starting defense of the Baltimore Ravens, the entire cast of Iron Man, X-Men and the Avengers, and a platoon of male Marines; just sayin'.